“The complainant, a 17-year-old woman, was interviewed by the accused for a job in his van.
She left the van door open as she was hesitant about discussing the job offer in his vehicle. The interview was conducted in a polite, business-like fashion. After the interview, the accused invited the complainant to see some of his work which was in the trailer behind his van.
The complainant purposely left the trailer door open but the accused closed it in a way which made the complainant think that he had locked it. There was no evidence whether the door was actually locked. The complainant stated she became frightened at this point. The accused initiated a number of incidents involving touching, each progressively more intimate than the previous, notwithstanding the fact the complainant plainly said “no” on each occasion.
He stopped his advances on each occasion she said “no” but persisted shortly after with an even more serious advance.
Any compliance by the complainant was done out of fear and the conversation that occurred between them clearly indicated that the accused knew that the complainant was afraid and certainly not a willing participant.”
“A conviction for sexual assault requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of two basic elements, that the accused committed the actus reus and that he had the necessary mens rea. The actus reus of assault is unwanted sexual touching. The mens rea is the intention to touch, knowing of, or being reckless of or wilfully blind to, a lack of consent, either by words or actions, from the person being touched.”
“The actus reus of sexual assault is established by the proof of 3 elements: (i) touching, (ii) the sexual nature of the contact, and
(iii) the absence of consent.
The first two of these elements are objective. It is sufficient for the Crown to prove that the accused’s actions were voluntary. The Crown need not prove that the accused had any mens rea with respect to the sexual nature of his behaviour. The absence of consent, however, is purely subjective and determined by reference to the complainant’s subjective internal state of mind towards the touching, at the time it occurred….……The accused’s perception of the complainant’s state of mind is not relevant and only becomes so when a defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent is raised in the mens rea stage of the inquiry.”
“No defence of implied consent to sexual assault exists in Canadian law.”
“To be legally effective consent must be freely given.”
She left the van door open as she was hesitant about discussing the job offer in his vehicle. The interview was conducted in a polite, business-like fashion. After the interview, the accused invited the complainant to see some of his work which was in the trailer behind his van.
The complainant purposely left the trailer door open but the accused closed it in a way which made the complainant think that he had locked it. There was no evidence whether the door was actually locked. The complainant stated she became frightened at this point. The accused initiated a number of incidents involving touching, each progressively more intimate than the previous, notwithstanding the fact the complainant plainly said “no” on each occasion.
He stopped his advances on each occasion she said “no” but persisted shortly after with an even more serious advance.
Any compliance by the complainant was done out of fear and the conversation that occurred between them clearly indicated that the accused knew that the complainant was afraid and certainly not a willing participant.”
“A conviction for sexual assault requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of two basic elements, that the accused committed the actus reus and that he had the necessary mens rea. The actus reus of assault is unwanted sexual touching. The mens rea is the intention to touch, knowing of, or being reckless of or wilfully blind to, a lack of consent, either by words or actions, from the person being touched.”
“The actus reus of sexual assault is established by the proof of 3 elements: (i) touching, (ii) the sexual nature of the contact, and
(iii) the absence of consent.
The first two of these elements are objective. It is sufficient for the Crown to prove that the accused’s actions were voluntary. The Crown need not prove that the accused had any mens rea with respect to the sexual nature of his behaviour. The absence of consent, however, is purely subjective and determined by reference to the complainant’s subjective internal state of mind towards the touching, at the time it occurred….……The accused’s perception of the complainant’s state of mind is not relevant and only becomes so when a defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent is raised in the mens rea stage of the inquiry.”
“No defence of implied consent to sexual assault exists in Canadian law.”
“To be legally effective consent must be freely given.”